SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 480

SSL Services filed this patent infringement action against Citrix on April 11, 2008, alleging Citrix infringed the '796 patent (claim 27).
SSL, later in May 2009, amended to allege infringement of claims 2, 4, and 7 of the 'Oil patent.
A five-day jury trial in June 2012 found no infringement of the '796 patent but infringement of the 'Oil patent, with the jury also finding the 'Oil patent not invalid, willful infringement by Citrix, and lump-sum damages of $10,000,000.
Following trial, the court considered Citrix’s Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions challenging damages, non-infringement, and invalidity determinations.
The court ultimately denied all five post-trial motions, thereby upholding the jury verdicts and willfulness finding.
The court noted licensing agreements were properly admitted for Georgia-Pacific factors and that marking, reliance on trial evidence, and USPTO reexamination results did not alter the verdicts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Marking requirement for presuit damages under 35 U.S.C. §287(a)	SSL complied via marks on patented articles; confidence in notice supported.	Citrix contends no valid marking occurred for the 'Oil patent coverage.	Denies Citrix’s JMOL; substantial evidence supports marking compliance.
Competitiveness of licensing evidence for reasonable royalty	Licensing agreements sufficiently comparable to hypothetical license.	Licenses are not sufficiently comparable to sustain the rate.	Denies Citrix’s JMOL; licensing agreements properly admitted and considered.
Valuation/revenue base supporting the royalty award	V-One’s 2004 valuation and related revenues justify the royalty.	Such values are unreliable given fire-sale context.	Denies Citrix’s JMOL; substantial evidence supports the damages award.
Infringement of the '796 patent by GoTo products; use of preferred embodiments in trial	GoTo products meet asserted claim limitations; evidence supports infringement.	Comparison to preferred embodiments was improper and prejudicial; should be limited to claims.	Denied SSL’s JMOL; substantial evidence supported non-infringement findings and proper claim analysis.
Willfulness of Citrix’s infringement of the 'Oil patent	Citrix acted with knowledge and willful disregard; evidence supports willfulness.	No objective recklessness or knowledge failure shown.	Denied Citrix’s JMOL; the court upheld the willfulness finding.

Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (reasonable royalty requires comparability evidence; Georgia-Pacific factors apply)
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (provide framework for calculating reasonable royalties)
Unisplay, S.A. v. Am. Elec. Sign Co., 69 F.3d 512 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (licenses relied on must be sufficiently comparable)
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley Co., 56 F.3d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (evidence must reasonably support royalty determinations)
Seagate Technology, LLC v. W. Digital Corp., 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (objectively reckless willfulness standard)
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc., 682 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (defines objective recklessness in willfulness analysis)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (judicial estoppel principle referenced)
Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer, Inc., 550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (embedding infringing component can render liability for contributory infringement)
Ui Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 670 F. Supp. 2d 568 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (pretrial evidentiary rulings on reexamination evidence)
Mirror Worlds, LLC v. Apple Inc., 692 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (inducement requires underlying direct infringement)